bond_cov_issue_cninfo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a pandas DataFrame, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or the exact structure of the returned data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and structured as a docstring, containing only the essential elements: a title, URL, parameters, and return type. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the duplicated typo and URL could be considered minor clutter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return value more concretely. It only says ':return: 可转债发行' (returns convertible bond issuance), which is vague. The parameters and annotations for read-only behavior are adequate, but the lack of detail about the resulting DataFrame columns or scope leaves some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description documents the parameters with ':param start_date: 开始统计时间' and ':type start_date: str', which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, for end_date it erroneously repeats '开始统计时间' instead of '结束统计时间', providing misleading semantics for that parameter. This typo undermines the usefulness of the parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose through the title line '巨潮资讯-数据中心-专题统计-债券报表-债券发行-可转债发行', which specifies the resource (convertible bond issuance) and source (CNInfo). It distinguishes itself from sibling bond issuance tools by naming '可转债发行' specifically. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the data source and topic, with no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or sibling tools. The intended use must be inferred entirely from the title and tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.